1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0435 LKK JFM P

vs.

COREY MCKAY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The sole claim remaining in this action is plaintiff’s

claim that defendant Vance violated his right to due process by validating plaintiff as a member

of the Blood gang without “some evidence” to support the validation. (See Findings and

Recommendations, filed January 26, 2005; Order filed March 7, 2005.) On June 15, 2005,

defendant Vance filed a motion for summary judgment. On June29, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 to compel discovery responses and a motion pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to postpone consideration of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant opposes both motions, except that he does not oppose an order granting plaintiff an

additional period of thirty days in which to file opposition to defendant’s motion for summary

judgment.

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The memorandum at issue was written after a September 4, 2002 incident involving, 1

inter alia, members of the Bloods prison gang, following which plaintiff was placed on lockdown

with all Blood gang members in the prison. (See Attachment E to Declaration of Lieutenant

Keith Reed, attached as Exhibit B to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, filed June 15,

2005.) The February 4, 2002 date appears therefore to be a typographical error.

 Plaintiff contends that he discovered his name on the February 4, 2002 memorandum 2

after the September 4, 2002 incident. See footnote 2, supra. 

2

By his motion to compel, plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendant to produce

documents responsive to request number 3 from his first request for production of documents and 

request numbers 1 and 5 from his second request for production of documents, and to respond to

interrogatory number 1 in his third set of interrogatories.

By request number 3, in his first request for production of documents, plaintiff

sough “copies of any and all memorandums, gang list listing all blood gang members in B

Facility, California State Prison, at Sacramento, from the year 2000 to the present.” (Ex. A to

Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery, filed June 29, 2005.) 

Defendant objected to the request on the grounds that the information sought was not relevant

and was “confidential, privileged and subject to protection as official information.” (Ex. E to

Plaintiff’s Declaration.)

Plaintiff contends that the information he seeks is relevant to prove that the

presence of his name on a February 4, 2002 memorandum shows that he had been improperly

1

validated as a member of the Blood prison gang. In opposition to the motion, defendant 2

contends that it is undisputed that plaintiff was not validated as a Blood gang member, that the

names on the memorandum included inmates who had not been validated as Blood gang

members, and that information about the gang status of other inmates is not relevant to his claim

against defendant Vance. 

The information plaintiff seeks by this request is not relevant to his claim that

defendant Vance violated his right to due process by improperly validating him as a member of

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 See footnote 1, supra. 3

3

the Blood prison gang. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to this request will be

denied.

By request number 1, set two, plaintiff sought CDC form 812 chronos for the

inmates listed on the February 4, 2002 memorandum. The forms sought identify the gang or 3

“disruptive group” identification of each inmate. Defendants objected to this request as “vague

and ambiguous,” overbroad, “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence,” burdensome in comparison to the likelihood any admissible evidence would be

discovered, and on the ground that it sought confidential information. (Defendant’s Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, at 5.)

Information concerning the gang affiliation of other inmates is not relevant to the

claim at bar. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to this request will be denied.

By request number 5, set 2, plaintiff seeks production of all documents of “past

complaints and inmate 602 appeals concerning gang management problems at CSP-Sacramento

since 2000.” (Motion to Compel, filed June 29, 2005, at 7.) Defendant objected to this request

as “vague and ambiguous,” overbroad, “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence,” and burdensome in comparison to the likelihood any admissible evidence

would be discovered. 

Defendants’ objection to this request is well-taken. No further response will be

required. 

Finally, in the first interrogatory contained in plaintiff’s third set of

interrogatories, plaintiff seeks the identity of “all high-ranking prison staff members (by name,

rank, and title at the relevant time, current rank and title and last know work address) who were

on duty in B Facility between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on September 5 and 6 , 2002.” (Ex. D to

th th

Motion to Compel.) Defendant objected to this request as “overly vague, ambiguous, and

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

burdensome.” (Ex. K to Motion to Compel.) Defendant’s objection is well-taken. No further

response will be required.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied. 

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) request, which is based on the matters at issue in the motion to compel, will

also be denied. Plaintiff will be given one period of thirty days in which to file and serve a

substantive opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 29, 2005 motion to compel is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s June 29, 2005 motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) is denied.

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file and serve a

substantive opposition to defendant’s June 15, 2005 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is

referred to the provisions of this court’s order filed June 10, 2004 with respect to the

requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment.

4. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served not later than ten days after

service of plaintiff’s opposition.

DATED: November 16, 2005. 

12

hunt0435.mtc

Case 2:04-cv-00435-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 4